An Analytical Methodology for Management Research: Insights from Semiotics

• Autorzy: Raquel Sastre
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the field of business management, managers have a tendency to think in a linear fashion that is restricted to cause and effect relationships. This mindset limits understanding of complex phenomena, including those that managers and business people face in their activities. This article proposes an Analytical Methodology for Management Research (AMMR) using a triadic logic gleaned from semiotics. The AMMR tool used herein diagnoses the meaning people assign to complex concepts such as "business success" and is based on three logical categories within semiotics where success is understood as business sustainability over time. This article ap- plies the AMMR to an empirical sample comprised of managers and business people. The results highlight the similarities and differences in attributing meaning to the concept of sustainability. The study also analyses the knowledge, behaviours and values that respondents considered most important for the success of an enterprise, i.e. its sustainability. This article concludes that the applied methodology creatively enriches the analy- sis of the phenomenon studied opening up many possible responses. The AMMR can be applied to the assessment of managers and business people from different organisations or people working in the same organisation at different hierarchical levels. In addition, the analysis can be performed individually or collectively. The classification of the responses obtained by applying the AMMR is open for future research, following 10 possible configurations, with each of them emerging as a logical combination that allows for the organisation of the emphasis given to concepts, behaviours and values.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Management; Manager

PL

Zarządzanie; Menedżer

• Czasopismo: Studia Oeconomica Posnaniensia
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 4
• Numer: nr 5
• Strony: 199--218

Twórcy

autor

Raquel Sastre

• Universidad de Buenos Aires, Faculty of Economics

Bibliografia

• Anderson, D.R., 1999, Business Ethics and the Pragmatic Attitude, in: Frederick, R. (ed.), A Companion to Business Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 56-64.
• Andrews, K.R., 1989, Ethics in Practice: Managing the Moral Corporation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
• Argyris, C., Schön, D., 1978, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective , Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
• Arjaliès, D.L., Lorino, P., Simpson, B., 2013, Understanding Organizational Creativity: Insights from Pragmatism , in: Kelemen, M., Rumens, N. (eds.). American Pragmatism and Organization - Issues and Controversies, 131-145. Retrieved from http://SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2285534 [access: October 2015].
• Buchholz, R.A., Rosenthal, S.B., 1998, Business Ethics. The Pragmatic Path Beyond Principles to Process, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
• Bunge, M., 2000, Status epistemológico de la administración , En Ader, J.J. (Comp.) Organizaciones,Paidós, Buenos Aires, pp. 52-64.
• Cavanagh, G., 1976, American Business Values in Transition,Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
• Clarke, T., 2004, Theories of Corporate Governance. The Philosophical Foundations of Corporate Governance , Routledge, London.
• Crespo, R., Tohmé, F., Heymann, D., 2010, Abducing the Crisis, in: Magnani, L., Carnielli, W., Pizzi, C. (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology: Abduction, Logic and Computational Discovery, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1996, Creativity, HarperCollins, New York.
• Cunliffe, A.L., 2009, The Philosopher Leader: On Relationalism. Ethics and Reflexivity. A Critical Perspective to Teaching Leadership, Management Learning, vol.40(1), pp. 87-101.
• Dewey, J., 1997, Experience & Education, Touchstone, New York.
• Dewey, J., 1916, Democracy & Education, MacMillan, New York.
• Eco, U., 1976, A Theory of Semiotics , Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Foucault, M., 1989, Archaeology of Knowledge ,Routledge, London.
• Goodpaster, K.E., Nash, L.L., Claude de Bettignies, H., 2006, Business Ethics: Policies and Persons ,(4th ed.), McGraw-Hill, Irwin.
• Guerri, C., Acebal, M., Alisio, J., Binnevies, A., Bohorquez Nates, M., Pertot, W., Voto, C., 2014, Nonágono semiótico. Un modelo operative para la investigación cualitativa, Eudeba, Buenos Aires.
• Hartshorne, C.; Weiss, P., Burks, A., 1931, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (eds.). Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
• Jastroch, N., Marlowe, T.J., 2010, Knowledge Transfer in Collaborative Knowledge Management: A Semiotic View , Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, JSCI, vol. 8(6), pp. 6-11.
• Lacan, J., 1966, Ecrits, Seuil, Paris.
• Liszka, J., 1996, A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles S. Peirce, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
• Lorino, P., 2001, A Pragmatic Analysis of the Role of Management Systems in Orga- nizational Learning, in: Sanchez, R. Knowledge Management and Organizatio- nal Competence, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Lorino, P., Clot, Y., Tricard, B., 2010, Research Methods for Non-Representational Approaches of Organizational Complexity. The Dialogical and Mediated Inquiry, Organization Studies, vol.32(6), pp. 769-801.
• Melé Carné, D., 2011, Management Ethics: Placing Ethics at the Core of Good Management,Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
• Myers, D., 2006, Exploring Social Psichology, McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Norton, B.G., 1999, Pragmatism Adaptive Management, and Sustainability, Environmental Values, vol.8,(4), pp. 451-466.
• Nubiola, J., 1996, La renovación pragmatista de la filosofía analítica, Eunsa, Pamplona.
• Peirce, C.S. [1931 (1893)], Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce,Vols. V-VI.
• Hartshorne, D., Weiss, P. (eds.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
• Perrow, C., 1986, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. (3th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Polanyi, M., 1967, The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Books, New York.
• Ruwhiu, D., Cone, Malcom, 2010, Advancing a Pragmatist Epistemology in Organisational Research, Quality Research in Organisations and Management, An International Journal, vol. 5(2), pp. 108-126.
• Savan, D., 1988, An Introduction to C.S. Peirce's Full System of Semeiotic, Semiotic Circle, Toronto.
• Schatzki, T.R., 2005, The Sites of Organizations, Organization Studies, vol. 26(3), pp. 465-484.
• Schön, D., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action, Temple Smith, London.
• Shalley, C., Gilson, L., 2004, What Leaders Need to Know: A Review of Social and Contextual Factors that Can Foster or Hinder Creativity, The Leadership Quarte r ly, vol.15(1), pp. 33-53.
• Smets, M., Morris, T., Greengood, R., 2012, From Practice to Field: A Multilevel Model of Practice-Driven Institutional Change, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 5(4), pp. 877-904.
• Tsoukas, H., Chia, R., 2002, On Organizational Becoming : Rethinking Organizational Change, Organization Science, vol.13(5), pp. 567-582.
• Weick, K., 2009, Making Sense of the Organization, vol. 2, Wiley, West Sussex.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.18559/SOEP.2016.5.12